One of the common objections to the "God-concept"* given by agnostics is the idea that "if, in short, there is a community of computers living in my head, there had also better be somebody who is in charge; and by god, it had better be me" (Jerry Fodor). We want--to use cheesy movie terminology--to choose our own destiny. We want to eat fortune cookies until we find a fortune we like and go with that one, ignoring the preceding fortunes. Movies in which an oppressed minority protagonist rises above despite the odds to become more than s/e was born to be are continually successful despite a complete lack of originality. Why?

*(a term I'm going to operationalize as the systematic theology surrounding the nature of God in a Christian context.)

We want control. Maybe it's a culture thing or it's American society, maybe it's intrinsic; I don't actually know (though Nisbett's Geography of Thought does allude to Asian cultures and societies emphasizing an external locus of control--contrast with the West's internal one, suggesting it's more cultural/societal than it is intrinsic). We watch cheesy aforementioned movies to--among other things--relate to the protagonist and, even for a second, believe that we, too, can "change our stars." (A Knight's Tale). "Control" is cited as one of the number one reasons for cutting (Favazza, 1987) and Sociologists name "control" as the primary cause of violent crimes like rape and domestic violence (citation needed...though I think this might count as common knowledge). I would argue (albeit without a whole lot of empirical backing) that the success of games like World of Warcraft, Runescape, Elder Scrolls (Morrowind and Oblivion), etc. also comes back to the idea that "while in real life I'm a loser and can't control my surroundings, in this game I am a strong hero and in control of my own destiny."

I opened with an allusion to agnosticism and atheist views of control and then tangented into illustrations of the human craving for control. Now I'm going to bring it back. The first quote came from philosopher Jerry Fodor, as quoted in the article, "First Person Plural" (in the November 2008 edition of the Atlantic). This sounds nice, and it's easy to see how this view of the self is more attractive than that of Christianity. Really, who wants some invisible entity telling us what we can and can't do? That whole Sovereignty of God thing is just made to to deny us all control of our lives. Karl Marx argued that's why humans invented god: as an opiate to make sense of a world that seems largely outside our control (which brings into question the similarities between the God-concept and WoW).

However, aforementioned article also poses an alternative view--or "radical" view to use the terminology in the article--that "if you accept that our brains are a myriad of smaller components, you must reject such notions as character, praise, blame, and free will."I'd like to either expand this argument or alter it so it includes thought. The very construction of neurons and neural circuits (ultimately including the entire nervous system) is essentially reactionary: neurons fire if and only if enough innervating (preceding) neurons fire. (This isn't entirely true, there is an element of randomness, but randomness doesn't offer any more control, arguably less, so I'll simplify the model the way they do in undergrad classes.) For example one neuron fires, say because a specific frequency is heard, which causes another to fire, and another, until it reaches the auditory cortex and the information is "processed," which really just means is sent around from one neuron to the next and the path of the signal is how it gets "meaning." Eventually the signal will die because a given neuron won't pass it on for whatever reason (inhibition neurons, not enough EPSPs, randomness, etc.). The point is that action potentials--according to theory--don't start or stop as we want them to, but solely due to reactions to either external stimuli or other neurons. Unpleasant as it sounds, this radical view makes far more sense than Fodor's desire does in light of neuroscientific theory.

So the opening line of reasoning on the part of agnostics and atheists denying the Christian God because they want control isn't reasoning so much as it is wishful thinking. Here's where my own argument comes in: only in the context of possessing a metaphysical mind are we capable of controlling our own thoughts, and only in the context of a metaphysical creator can we have such a mind. The mind needs to be metaphysical because it needs to be above the reactionary nature of physical neurons if we are to have control of thought. A metaphysical creator is necessary because evolution* only acts on the physical DNA and that cannot account for a metaphysical mind.

*which is "true" in the way any scientific theory is true: it's a work in progress, but given available resources it's the best we've got.

So here's the paradox: Only in the context of a metaphysical creator (e.g. the Christian God) do we have control over our thoughts. Rejecting the idea of God also means rejecting the possibility of the most internal form of control we have: control of our thoughts--the outside world gives us even less control. That said, the control we have in the context of the Christian God must be surrendered to Him, but at least we have some control including the choice of whether to retain or surrender that control. Contrary to popular belief and intuition, our control can only come from God, and if God does not exist, then neither do we have any sort of control over our lives.

The Blacksheep sends his love

Oh Magnified Plaid (AKA MxPx), how I love thee...
unfortunately right now this song is all too true.
Today sucks. Straight up, nothing more to say, today was a day from Hell.

Computer screen is broken (as I type this, I'm missing about an 1/8th of my screen so I have to keep scrolling so the text is in the one sweet spot that I can still see.

I'm in a bad mood, I have been the past couple days. I'm tired, I'm drained, I'm stressed, and I just want this to be done. I don't know what "this" is, exactly, but it needs to stop.

I'm broke and have a broken computer...and strong need for anti-Ds...this will be interesting...food isn't that important, right?

"Can't Live until you die" - Sixx AM
"Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature." - Colossians 3
"I feel it deep within. It's just beneath the skin. I must confess that I feel like a monster" - Skillet
"Dying to ourselves is something we must do. We must die to ourselves to pull through" - Stutterfly
"For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with that we should no longer be slaves to sin—because anyone who has died has been freed from sin." - Romans 6

So people who have talked to me recently can tell you that I've been a bit pre-occupied with death. Maybe it's because my hand is covered in dead skin that has mutated my fingerprints into...well, a blob Yay for playing bass all weekend at a Church Retreat. Perhaps it's the fact that a week ago I lost track of time, accidentally got drunk, and then looked at old pictures of my childhood...back when my sister was still alive. It could be that it's just that time of year: the leaves are turning brown, flowers are dying, and with them summer is giving way to fall. It might even be the fact that this is my last year of college and therefore the beginning of the end of an era. A chapter in my life is, well, fading into darkness and I want to finish off my bucket list before the heart monitor flatlines.

Whether this is another potential cause or a result is irrelevant, but along with this pre-occupation with death I've been thinking about those two Bible passages mentioned above a lot. I can't tell you the number of times I've attempted suicide (continuing with this metaphorical/spiritual morbid imagery), but I just won't die. I want to, and sometimes I've even been in a coma in the ICU for days, weeks, months on end. But the demonic physicians are skilled, and they always manage to stabilize me.

Skew to this (in the mathematical sense of the word, meaning two lines in a 3-dimensional space that do not share a common plane) is the notion of my identity in Christ (see Ephesians 2 and Romans 8). Assuming I am God's Creation and  the infusion of the Holy Spirit into my being restores my image-bearing attribute, who I am in Christ is who I really am--in an ultimate reality sort of way rather than an existential sort of way. Therefore when I'm bogged down with sin...or even just the stresses of life that keep me from giving my all to God (which is a weak/stupid excuse, but one I often use) then I really am being not myself.

While the above might be good food for thought, or even a good "huh, I hadn't thought of it like that" moment for some, I doubt it's anything terribly earth-shattering. The earth-shattering part comes in when you ask (and hopefully answer) the question of, "So, if this isn't who I am, who then, Am I?"

The question of "Who Am I?"* is difficult enough to answer in even what I've called the "existential way" (which is sort of a misnomer, but I'm going to continue using it), much less the ultimate reality sort of way. How does one search for this? There are no uniform ways of searching for the self (despite what certain well-intentioned-but-nonetheless-awful Christian authors will try to tell you), and therefore there are no mathematical formulae or logical processes by which one can find one's true self. In many ways, it seems to be a lost cause...

Except in the moments it doesn't matter and you just don't care, it all makes sense. When your fingers are bleeding, your wrist locked up and refuses to keep going. Your voice hoarse. Pouring yourself into forgetting the world. Leading worship for an audience of One. My body is broken, bloody, bruised, sore, (a bit smelly,) and spent. It was totally worth it. Unfortuantely, in those moments of just not caring about the question, yeah, you find the answer, but since you don't care you promptly forget and try to remember what chords are next (or let your fingers decide which bass riff will sound good, regardless of what's written) and can't remember the answer to the question when it's all done. So I'm still back to square one, except I'm a bit deafer and in pain. Still worth it.


The Punk Christian sends his Love.




*To hopingforasomeday: no, I will not accept "You are a Child of God" as an identity, because it is really no different than any other relational attributes the boy in your story mentioned and still has no implications for one's so-called "calling in life," which is, in this case, the point of the question.